Axis of Bob

I read about a quarter of that and it was some of the most tedious and gruelling reading ever. I had to stop myself putting whiteout on the screen! I especially liked that the club had shown the members "a total lack of disrespect". Shouldn't that make you happy? :D

I'm probably going out on a limb here, but I'd entertain having him train with us. I'm not sure if I'd draft him and bring him inside the club, but I'd defeinitely think about getting him to train with us. Why? He is one of the hardest trainers out of anyone out there. Having an example like him on the training track would be a real eye opener to a lot of our players, especially young ones who we are trying develop into elite midfielders. I don't think that there is a better example, on the track, of how to reach your potential than Ben Cousins. I would be in favour because I actually think that he could possibly help our culture in some ways.

If you keep two of them (ie the old players) then we don't draft the last two players on draft day. These were McNamara and martin. I'm happier with them on the list, thank you.

His kicking is bad, but he played on Jarryd Allen against Casey that I saw and he killed him. Just outread the ball, put his body in the right spots and was really composed in the air and with the ball in his hands. Gave the ball off to some excellent options deep in defence, but his kicking is pretty ordinary. You're right that people would only see the poor kicking, which is a sad reflection on the observors. It's unusual to have a kid from such a background with natural defensive nous. I'd be happy to play him, but more as a key defender than a pinch hitting ruckman. I don't think he will learn as much from playing AFL ruck when compared with VFL full back. Re: Barry. One thing that is so important with Barry is that he's got such amazing core strength. Even at his height he is so strong, which shows out as well with his ability to break tackles.

You're right, graz, in that Firrito started as a run with player. That was one of the reasons why he wasn't drafted until the rookie list after a year with Box Hill. His form was excellent all year and it was the Roos that took him. The thought was that he played much taller than he was (he's only about 6 foot 1 or 2) and so recruiters couldn't really see a role for him at AFL level. It's also interesting to note that a lot of the full backs started out as forwards. I think that, at underage level, the best players are played up forward. Mal Michael was another who played a bit up forward. It's only after they reach an AFL list that they are given a chance at FB. Glass is one of the exceptions. It also highlights that, as it is such a specialised role and one that involves a lot of physical attributes, you full backs require a lot more time because they need to acquire this physical maturity to be able to compete at full back. Frawley has been able to play quite well early in his career which is unusual and probably comes from his exceptional running ability which allows him to play small if required. Also good to see that he had a good game on the weekend. As for being short of talented KPP defenders on our list, I would say that we have very good talent in our defensive talls. Having seen Martin, I think that he has all the physical attributes to be a quality 'monster' defender. He may take a bit of time, but he's an exciting physical package. Along with Rivers and Frawley (and McNamara as a potential running tall) I think that we are well covered in this area.

As an exercise in futility, I wanted to prove my point about close-to-goal key defenders generally requiring a few years before being expected to take on the opposition's key forwards. I have already outlined why I think this is the case earlier in this thread, but I thought that I'd try to give the "hard cold facts" that Jarka said that he required. So, here goes. The attachment is a list of the starting full back on each club's list. It shows first year on an AFL list, the round/year that they debuted and the number of games they played in their 1st - 2nd - 3rd year. Only 6.3 games average in the first year, 10.5 in the second and 14.2 in the third. Look at Scarlett, Barry, Merrett and Rutten- they combined for 14 games in their first 2 years. Brian Harris/Lake only played 1 in his first year and he was drafted as a 20 year old! From that you can see that (in raw numbers) not many play a lot of games in their first few years. Hudgeton played 17 in his first year as a pocket next to Shanahan, Croad played 17 (although he only 'amassed' 99 possessions - 5.8 a game) and that was about it. Also, 4 of the players were drafted as 20 year olds, which shows that it takes them time to "show something" when playing in the role they did. Frawley played 9 games in his first year, which is a) above the average, and b ) despite injury early in the year. I think that is very good. As I said, football isn't as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes you have to go a little deeper. And thanks for your kind works, JJ. I don't post as often as I used to here, but it's good to know that some people are interested.

Yep, and that injury report was from August in 03. Just before round 19. How does that take away anything from what I've said? And the CAC chat session wasn't at the end of the season. As you can see, he says that Bell will keep him out for nearly the whole year. He also said "There is still sometime to go in the season" when talking about the under 18s. I think I remember it happening about 2 or 3 weeks after the under 18 carnival that year. I'm not arguing against CAC, I'm actually arguing with him, since I said that he was going to be played on potential, rather than exposed form. But continue focussing on the big issues, without addressing the side issues like, for instance, Frawley.

Jarka: "So we have to protect poor little Frawley because he is skinny but it's perfectly ok to throw Cale Morton 'to the wolves' even though he is 4 kg's lighter and the same height?" That was the line that I was responding to with regards to Morton. You raised Morton. The point is that you can't look at Morton and Frawley the same way because one is an outside midfielder and one is a key defender. Frawley is required to use his body to defend a specific man one on one, while Morton can expect casual contact as part of the midfield rotation. It's clearly not the same. Just look at similar examples of full backs. Frawley will probably play this week, or next. It's not about protecting him, but his ability to show potential is limited until he can build the body to play the position he will probably end up playing. "Daniel Bell was a certainty, however, his injury will keep him out for nearly the whole year" That chat was done later in the year. No less than half way through at least. Before this time he was playing Sandy reserves and had only just put in a few games for the Sandy seniors. He then injured a finger and missed about 6 weeks very early in 04. The footy club really rated him in this first year (as they did Frawley in his first year - despite missing the first 6 weeks with injury and only playing about 2 Sandy games before debuting for Melbourne) and his debut was going to be, at that point, not form related. It was because they saw great potential in him. H: I really like Bartram as a footballer, as he is honest as the day is long, has a great engine and is a natural, competitive midfielder (albeit with suspect skills). Bell didn't have an engine or footy brain but is great one on one and that's why he plays deep in defence. I don't think Bartram will improve as much as Bell has simply because Bartram has less to learn. Bell is capable of playing on more opponents than Bartram and, the way the game is heading with smaller marking players up forward, he'll be more important IMO. I see Bartram as a Junior clone, but maybe one who can't play the way he needs to. Hopefully he recovers fully from his knee and is able to into the midfield. With Morton, it's got nothing to do with getting hit. Anyone can get hit. But he will rarely, if ever, have to stand toe to toe with his direct opponent and win a one on one contest that involves power. Frawley will have to do this dozens of times a game, with these contests often being the difference between a rebound or goal. The Sylvia example in that is very interesting, H. I can't help but wonder whether he could be that player if he had the engine. We may never know. I'm far more happy to judge a player of Frawley's type on potential at round 3 of his second year. I actually think he's achieved far more than I thought he would at this stage of his career. He's an exciting prospect, because KPPs with defensive skills and speed are very hard to come by.

I'll base it on what I've seen of him as well. FWIW, Bell played all of his first year at Sandy and the Sandy reserves. He then played 3 games at the end of his second year when he wasn't really ready. He continued to struggle to find his feet until the end of 2006, when he started to look more comfortable. It was only really last year that he became a solid member of the side. The fact is, at this stage in his career Bell hadn't even played a single AFL game. It wasn't due to injury, he just wasn't ready. He has now developed into a good AFL player. But for you to say that a "comparison with Bell is humorous considering at the same stage of their careers Bell had shown alot more potential" is just plain wrong. It gives the impression that you are simply making things up. Bartram played 22 games in his first year and had showed far more than Bell who, at that stage in his career, was struggling to get a kick in the Sandy reserves (yes, I was watching those games). You saying that you're not convinced of Bartram actually lends further support to my argument since Bell will probably be the superior player despite the slow start to his career. I could call you a name that referred to your lack of intelligence here, but I'll refrain for fear of making you cry. Jarka, you made a comparison with Cale Morton and Frawley, so I'll go with that one if it's better (it's not better for your argument). Morton is a midfielder. He's playing as a wide midfielder and not getting much body contact at all. As a result his physical development is not a major part of his game. Frawley is a key defender and will be asked to play defensively on the opposition's best forwards. As a result he plays a tight game that requires a lot of body work. Hence he will need more time until he is able to perform that role. Again, apples and oranges. With Frawley, I prefer to back my own judgement with the help of the judgement of those whose opinions I rate. Yours I don't rate since you have shown yourself to be simplistic in your view of football. My opinion is that Frawley shows a lot of promise as a defensive tall, since he has very good speed and is also very good one on one for a kid of his size (or lack of at this stage). He is also a very physical player, which is a requirement at a deep key defensive position. Key defenders often take a lot of time to come along, especially those who are being looked at to play close to goal. It's a very specialised position. What is good is that he's able to play on smaller oponents at this stage. But with added size as well as his demonstrated ability one on one, he should be able to play on the big players in the future. It allows flexibility as the game moves further away from the 'monster' forward and more towards the running forward (ie, Franklin). I also hope you weren't including me in the group of people have never been to see under 18 games. Also, remember Ben Rutten? You know, the All Australian? He was drafted before the 2002 season. He then spent all year in the SANFL. In 2003 he played 2 games. Yep, just 2 games in 2 years. In 2004 he played 9 games. They should have dumped him after 11 games in 3 years. What a dud!! Football isn't as simple as you like to think it is. There are so many different factors that not ever peg has a nice round hole to fit. If I teach you anything, I hope it is that. If not, we can continue this fun.

We were good early last week when we had small forwards creating forward pressure. When that dropped off the ball was moved too easily. It's no surprise that Aussie was the first elevated. But it is disappointing that Grimes will be a fair way off. But, given the year that it is, I'd rather they get it fully right rather than risk anything.

I wonder why he hasn't dropped Robbo, and we may even see that tonight for all I know. Newton has already been dropped. Neitz is a difficult one. However Miller is not the most talented player, but he busts his nut in doing the team things, which includes chasing and defensive pressure. He will keep his spot in the side (IMO) until the culture of the team is strong enough to accomodate his absence - and that looks a fair way off. But I definitely think that we will see a smaller, more mobile forward line in the future.

Not having speed is fine when you have the ball, provided that you can find a way to move it quickly. But being slow KILLS you when the opposition have the ball. Look at the whole game, not just the fun bits where someone takes a hanger in the goal square. The spectacular efforts don't win you games, the defensive efforts do.

So we should set up a game plan to help lazy frontrunners. Do we then change the gameplan when we bring in some decent, hard working and committed players? Or do we keep recruiting the same type that we have recruited because they fit in with the game plan that we are using (which was designed to cater for selfish players who don't run hard)?

Jarka, you have a very simplistic view of football. Remember that footballers are people, and what's good for one is not necessarily good for another. As an example, look at how much time it took for Bell to become a good defender (including a lot of time at Sandy and time in the Sandy reserves) when compared with Bartram. Also, Frawley is being looked at to play deep in defence, while Garland is more of an attacking half back/half forward. You're comparing apples with oranges. Plus they are different people. But that doesn't fit in with your simplistic view of football. (Yes, I have seen both at Sandy)

Franky, it did come across badly but I wasn't trying to have a go at you. The comment about not seeing the game was rhetorical, as I didn't know nor particularly mind if you did or didn't. It merely led into a point about the midfield speeds of the two teams last week. Although I was surprised that you wanted to bring in Valenti when our midfield is sooooo slow. Even most of our outside players are slow. The reference to Fisher was that he, too, was very slow. I think Valenti could be a handy little player in the Mitchell style, but Mitchell is surrounded by pace and skill while Valenti would be surrounded by the plod squad. Fisher won a lot of the ball but didn't have Valenti's class. BTW, I'm not exactly a speed merchant! :D And even at my very agricultural level, a midfield filled with nothing but stocky clearance midfielders would struggle. You only need one or two or you'll get cut to shreds by decent opposition.

Errrrr, so what you want is to bring in Holland, drop Wheatley and have a midfield of Jones, McLean, Moloney, McDonald and Valenti. Maybe we could stick Adam Fisher in there too. You didn't see the game last week, did you? Remember the bit where we were completely run off our legs by Hawthorn to the tune of 104 points? You then speak of the virtues of possibly the two quickest players in the game!! Yes, there are many people screaming blue murder about the team at the moment. But forgive me if my time on the websites has caused me to not think highly of the opinions of 'passionate supporters'.

Anyone who saw the game last week could see that we were absolutel run off our legs. So no surprise to see that we dropped Moloney and Petterd (neither of whom had full preseason) and Yze (who doesn't have a big tank). In comes Sylvia (with a full preseason and good form under his belt), Dunn (good endurance and full preseason) and Bartram (super endurance and running ability). Before you call things 'absolute stupidity' how about you think about how one event affects another, which affects another, which affects another........

A bigger problem is when people equate not having a good game with being soft. Calling someone soft is just a throw away line for many people who are not intelligent enough to separate performance from endeavour. All those who call White, Miller or Green soft are not learned observors of football. Especially Miller .... are you serious? I dare say that those calling them soft have also never played football past juniors.

Put me down tentatively as a rover at this stage.

Rivers doesn't have the speed for Franklin. I wouldn't be surprised if Frawley played on him. Still early days, though.

The Simmonds trade was: Simmonds to Freo Bandy to Footscray Pick 26 and Ellis to Melbourne. This was also the Judd draft, so Simmonds for 26 was not unreasonable in itself. Ellis was more sugar coating IMO but it is often said by people on this site that it was Simmonds for Ellis, which completely untrue. It's the same as when people say we traded Grgic for Bizzell. It's simplistic and untrue.

Errr, you're missing the point. The recruiters watch these kids play footy and will be able to tell if they can kick/play. Speed and endurance is harder to pick up with the naked eye, so the Draft Camp is able to confirm their thoughts on these types of things. Draft Camp is just testing for physical and psychological attributes, as well as getting them all together.

If Sampi wanted to play footy desperately then he would have. As it is, he didn't. Martin has enormous potential as a marking power forward. His improvement has been marked over the last year at Sandy and he has attributes that we lack. He is an aggressive and genuinely powerful player who can take a mark. I'd rather have someone who has the ability to play AFL as well as the attitude to play AFL, rather than someone who has the ability but not the attitude. It's also much better for building a team to have a culture of hard work and selflessness, rather than laziness which can become infectious. It's an culture that we're trying to fix and we would only punt on Sampi if he could prove that he wanted to be part of it. He didn't.

I think that, while I agree that skills are very important in assessing a kid, that there are a lot of problems with what you have said. Firstly, Daniel Bell has never had a problem with his skills. His skills have always been very good. He needed to learn how to play football after growing up on a farm in SA and to improve his endurance. Arrowsmith's problem is his speed, not skills. Bellchamber's was his endurance. McGinnity is just a bit vanilla. The issue is more with the casual observer who looks more at results than forecasting that forward to AFL level. Looking at Bellchambers dominting the hitouts against Div 2 sides but still doing nothing around the ground. The questions then are, "will he be a dominant tap ruckman at AFL level?", "why isn't he doing anything around the ground?", "can we improve that?". Or with Arrowsmith it would be, "can we improve his pace to AFL standard?", "if not, what is his role?", "is he good enough for that role?". Also, it's easier for casual observers to look at Draft Camp results as then are quantitative measures, which is hard to obtain in a subjective field. But would you draft Donovan Bailey? Why not: He's 6'3, 95 kg and runs 100m in 9.8 seconds? A recruiter will look at him and tell you that he can't play footy. An internet critic will cite you his draft camp performance. Berts was an aerobic freak, but just couldn't play footy. He actually had decent skills but couldn't get near it.

Aaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! Change! Horrible, horrible change!!!!!!! Get over it people. Change happens. I like the design.